What is truth?

[Gary Childress]

You're mixing up ontology with aesthetics. That's what's called a "category error."

"New York is a nice place to visit" is an aesthetic opinion, not an objective fact. Some people don't like it.

"New York is a place" is an objective fact. Whether or not it's "nice" is left up to the perceiver. But that it is a place is not a matter of opinion but of objective fact: it is one, whether I think it's "nice" or not.

Perhaps Popeye is saying something similar about New York being a "place". Only humans can know of New York as a "place".

Well, that's purely assumptive, not obvious. If God exists, what He knows is far more durable than what particular humans, or even the whole human race, can know.

And if I say New York is a "nice place to visit," have I said something "meaningless" or "nonsensical" to you?

No, but you also haven't told me any objective truth or fact.

Here's how it breaks down. Each area of knowledge has its own appropriate polarities. Questions that correspond to these polarities are appropriate to that category; but crossing them over creates a category error and a fallacy.

Ontology: "exist," versus "not exist." (and, of course, all the related synonyms)
Epistemology: "know," versus "not know." (and synonyms, like "realize," "see," "get," "understand," "perceive"...)
Aesthetics: "like," versus "not like." (or "beautiful," versus "ugly," or "desire" versus "detest"...)
Ethics: "good," versus "evil." (and "right," versus "wrong," and so on)

Aesthetics is primarily subjective: anybody can disagree, with no problem. But one cannot disagree with reality and not pay a price for that...and often, a very significant one. Ontology is not "soft" or "forgiving" in the way aesthetics always is.

How did we get on the topic of category errors? If you say "subjective truth" is "nonsense," I cannot point to examples of subjective truths which are not "nonsense" without making a "category error"? I was simply pointing out that some "subjective" truths seem to be more than "nonsense". Is there perhaps some other word you wanted to use other than "nonsense" to describe all "subjective truths"?

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps Popeye is saying something similar about New York being a "place". Only humans can know of New York as a "place".

Well, that's purely assumptive, not obvious. If God exists, what He knows is far more durable than what particular humans, or even the whole human race, can know.

And if I say New York is a "nice place to visit," have I said something "meaningless" or "nonsensical" to you?

No, but you also haven't told me any objective truth or fact.

Here's how it breaks down. Each area of knowledge has its own appropriate polarities. Questions that correspond to these polarities are appropriate to that category; but crossing them over creates a category error and a fallacy.

Ontology: "exist," versus "not exist." (and, of course, all the related synonyms)
Epistemology: "know," versus "not know." (and synonyms, like "realize," "see," "get," "understand," "perceive"...)
Aesthetics: "like," versus "not like." (or "beautiful," versus "ugly," or "desire" versus "detest"...)
Ethics: "good," versus "evil." (and "right," versus "wrong," and so on)

Aesthetics is primarily subjective: anybody can disagree, with no problem. But one cannot disagree with reality and not pay a price for that...and often, a very significant one. Ontology is not "soft" or "forgiving" in the way aesthetics always is.

How did we get on the topic of category errors?

Simply by you making one.

When you ask whether NY is "nice place to visit," you're asking for an aesthetic judgement, not an objective one. So the issue of truthfulness does not enter the equation. There are no objective, truthful, or universal standards for "niceness." In fact, nobody knows for sure what you're asking. "Nice" is a highly maleable and subjective kind of assessment.

You can't ask whether or not it's "true" that NY is nice, because the answer would vary by whatever standards the listener chooses to apply. If I don't like NY, I'm not "wrong" or "untruthful" for doing so. You can ask for aesthetic agreement or disagreement. But the truth or falsity of the statement isn't even requestable. You're thinking in the wrong category.

[Gary Childress]

Well, that's purely assumptive, not obvious. If God exists, what He knows is far more durable than what particular humans, or even the whole human race, can know.


No, but you also haven't told me any objective truth or fact.

Here's how it breaks down. Each area of knowledge has its own appropriate polarities. Questions that correspond to these polarities are appropriate to that category; but crossing them over creates a category error and a fallacy.

Ontology: "exist," versus "not exist." (and, of course, all the related synonyms)
Epistemology: "know," versus "not know." (and synonyms, like "realize," "see," "get," "understand," "perceive"...)
Aesthetics: "like," versus "not like." (or "beautiful," versus "ugly," or "desire" versus "detest"...)
Ethics: "good," versus "evil." (and "right," versus "wrong," and so on)

Aesthetics is primarily subjective: anybody can disagree, with no problem. But one cannot disagree with reality and not pay a price for that...and often, a very significant one. Ontology is not "soft" or "forgiving" in the way aesthetics always is.

How did we get on the topic of category errors?

Simply by you making one.

When you ask whether NY is "nice place to visit," you're asking for an aesthetic judgement, not an objective one. So the issue of truthfulness does not enter the equation. There are no objective, truthful, or universal standards for "niceness." In fact, nobody knows for sure what you're asking. "Nice" is a highly maleable and subjective kind of assessment.

You can't ask whether or not it's "true" that NY is nice, because the answer would vary by whatever standards the listener chooses to apply. If I don't like NY, I'm not "wrong" or "untruthful" for doing so. You can ask for aesthetic agreement or disagreement. But the truth or falsity of the statement isn't even requestable. You're thinking in the wrong category.

OK. I'm more interested in hearing your answer to this question, though:

I was simply pointing out that some "subjective" truths seem to be more than "nonsense". Is there perhaps some other word you wanted to use other than "nonsense" to describe all "subjective truths"?

[Immanuel Can]

I was simply pointing out that some "subjective" truths seem to be more than "nonsense". Is there perhaps some other word you wanted to use other than "nonsense" to describe all "subjective truths"?

No, for a very simple reason.

"Subjective" does not mean "true." It means "what a feel/perceive/wish to believe," rather than "objective and real," which is what "truth" means. Again, it's a category error even to speak of "subjective truths," as well as an oxymoron, a self-contradiction.

Subjectivity cannot be concerned with truth. Only by comparing its internal dispositions to the real world can it even become relevant to truth; but subjectivism, by definition, absolutely refuses to take any arbitrative cue from objective reality, so it cannot involve itself with issues of truth.

There are no subjective "truths." Just "subjective feelings" or "subjective states." To verify the truthfulness of anything, one has to refer to the fixed facts of external reality, or no truth-value can be assessed.

So "subjective truth" is actually a nonsense phrase.

[Gary Childress]

I was simply pointing out that some "subjective" truths seem to be more than "nonsense". Is there perhaps some other word you wanted to use other than "nonsense" to describe all "subjective truths"?

No, for a very simple reason.

"Subjective" does not mean "true." It means "what a feel/perceive/wish to believe," rather than "objective and real," which is what "truth" means. Again, it's a category error even to speak of "subjective truths," as well as an oxymoron, a self-contradiction.

Subjectivity cannot be concerned with truth. Only by comparing its internal dispositions to the real world can it even become relevant to truth; but subjectivism, by definition, absolutely refuses to take any arbitrative cue from objective reality, so it cannot involve itself with issues of truth.

There are no subjective "truths." Just "subjective feelings" or "subjective states." To verify the truthfulness of anything, one has to refer to the fixed facts of external reality, or no truth-value can be assessed.

So "subjective truth" is actually a nonsense phrase.

But doesn't "nonsense" mean something doesn't make sense or is unable to be understood? Subjective statements seem to make sense. And they can be true or false. If I say New York is a nice place to visit, and you visit and have a nice time there, then my statement would be true, wouldn't it? Or how are you defining "nonsense"? And while we're at it, how are you defining "objective" and "subjective"?

[Immanuel Can]

I was simply pointing out that some "subjective" truths seem to be more than "nonsense". Is there perhaps some other word you wanted to use other than "nonsense" to describe all "subjective truths"?

No, for a very simple reason.

"Subjective" does not mean "true." It means "what a feel/perceive/wish to believe," rather than "objective and real," which is what "truth" means. Again, it's a category error even to speak of "subjective truths," as well as an oxymoron, a self-contradiction.

Subjectivity cannot be concerned with truth. Only by comparing its internal dispositions to the real world can it even become relevant to truth; but subjectivism, by definition, absolutely refuses to take any arbitrative cue from objective reality, so it cannot involve itself with issues of truth.

There are no subjective "truths." Just "subjective feelings" or "subjective states." To verify the truthfulness of anything, one has to refer to the fixed facts of external reality, or no truth-value can be assessed.

So "subjective truth" is actually a nonsense phrase.

But doesn't "nonsense" mean something doesn't make sense or is unable to be understood? Subjective statements seem to make sense.

Watch closely. I think you can get it.

"Subjective statement" is not an oxymoron, not a self-contradiction, and not nonsense. Subjective statements can exist.

But "subjective truth" is. No sensible idea can be understood from the combination of the two words. It makes no more sense than "married bachelor" or "square circle." None of the aforementioned can be had.

That's what makes any appeal to "subjective truth" nonsense.

[Gary Childress]

No, for a very simple reason.

"Subjective" does not mean "true." It means "what a feel/perceive/wish to believe," rather than "objective and real," which is what "truth" means. Again, it's a category error even to speak of "subjective truths," as well as an oxymoron, a self-contradiction.

Subjectivity cannot be concerned with truth. Only by comparing its internal dispositions to the real world can it even become relevant to truth; but subjectivism, by definition, absolutely refuses to take any arbitrative cue from objective reality, so it cannot involve itself with issues of truth.

There are no subjective "truths." Just "subjective feelings" or "subjective states." To verify the truthfulness of anything, one has to refer to the fixed facts of external reality, or no truth-value can be assessed.

So "subjective truth" is actually a nonsense phrase.

But doesn't "nonsense" mean something doesn't make sense or is unable to be understood? Subjective statements seem to make sense.

Watch closely. I think you can get it.

"Subjective statement" is not an oxymoron, not a self-contradiction, and not nonsense. Subjective statements can exist.

But "subjective truth" is. No sensible idea can be understood from the combination of the two words. It makes no more sense than "married bachelor" or "square circle." None of the aforementioned can be had.

That's what makes any appeal to "subjective truth" nonsense.

"Married bachelor" doesn't make sense because a bachelor is by definition an unmarried man. The term is self-contradicting. A person cannot be both married and a bachelor. So, combining the two words to refer to the same thing doesn't make sense. However, is part of the definition of "subjective" that something cannot also be "true"? Or how are we to understand that something being "true" conflicts with the term "subjective"?

[Immanuel Can]

But doesn't "nonsense" mean something doesn't make sense or is unable to be understood? Subjective statements seem to make sense.

Watch closely. I think you can get it.

"Subjective statement" is not an oxymoron, not a self-contradiction, and not nonsense. Subjective statements can exist.

But "subjective truth" is. No sensible idea can be understood from the combination of the two words. It makes no more sense than "married bachelor" or "square circle." None of the aforementioned can be had.

That's what makes any appeal to "subjective truth" nonsense.

"Married bachelor" doesn't make sense because a bachelor is by definition an unmarried man. The term is self-contradicting. A person cannot be both married and a bachelor. So, combining the two words to refer to the same thing doesn't make sense.

Perfectly right, so far.

However, is part of the definition of "subjective" that something cannot also be "true"?

Yes! Because "true" is the opposite of "subjective."

Let me make this clearer.

You go to New York. You tell your friend, "New York is nice."

Your friend goes. He goes the same places, and sees and does the same things.

When he comes back, he says, "New York was not nice."

If truth is the issue, then one of you is lying. It has to be the case, because you're making opposite claims. So which one got it wrong: you, when you said it was "nice," or him, when he said it was "not nice"?

Or is it not a matter of truth, but merely of choice, of aesthetics?

The answer is obvious, isn't it? "True" is not the issue. Only "like vs. dislike" is being spoken about.

[Gary Childress]

Watch closely. I think you can get it.

"Subjective statement" is not an oxymoron, not a self-contradiction, and not nonsense. Subjective statements can exist.

But "subjective truth" is. No sensible idea can be understood from the combination of the two words. It makes no more sense than "married bachelor" or "square circle." None of the aforementioned can be had.

That's what makes any appeal to "subjective truth" nonsense.

"Married bachelor" doesn't make sense because a bachelor is by definition an unmarried man. The term is self-contradicting. A person cannot be both married and a bachelor. So, combining the two words to refer to the same thing doesn't make sense.

Perfectly right, so far.

However, is part of the definition of "subjective" that something cannot also be "true"?

Yes! Because "true" is the opposite of "subjective."

Let me make this clearer.

You go to New York. You tell your friend, "New York is nice."

Your friend goes. He goes the same places, and sees and does the same things.

When he comes back, he says, "New York was not nice."

If truth is the issue, then one of you is lying. It has to be the case, because you're making opposite claims. So which one got it wrong: you, when you said it was "nice," or him, when he said it was "not nice"?

Or is it not a matter of truth, but merely of choice, of aesthetics?

The answer is obvious, isn't it? "True" is not the issue. Only "like vs. dislike" is being spoken about.

The opposite of "true" is "false", the opposite of "subjective" is "objective"? Aren't you conflating terms?

[Immanuel Can]

"Married bachelor" doesn't make sense because a bachelor is by definition an unmarried man. The term is self-contradicting. A person cannot be both married and a bachelor. So, combining the two words to refer to the same thing doesn't make sense.

Perfectly right, so far.

However, is part of the definition of "subjective" that something cannot also be "true"?

Yes! Because "true" is the opposite of "subjective."

Let me make this clearer.

You go to New York. You tell your friend, "New York is nice."

Your friend goes. He goes the same places, and sees and does the same things.

When he comes back, he says, "New York was not nice."

If truth is the issue, then one of you is lying. It has to be the case, because you're making opposite claims. So which one got it wrong: you, when you said it was "nice," or him, when he said it was "not nice"?

Or is it not a matter of truth, but merely of choice, of aesthetics?

The answer is obvious, isn't it? "True" is not the issue. Only "like vs. dislike" is being spoken about.

The opposite of "true" is "false", the opposite of "subjective" is "objective"? Aren't you conflating terms?

They're linked concepts.

How do you know when something is "true"? Answer that, if you would, and then I'll complete my point. I need to know what you think, first.

[Gary Childress]

Perfectly right, so far.
Yes! Because "true" is the opposite of "subjective."

Let me make this clearer.

You go to New York. You tell your friend, "New York is nice."

Your friend goes. He goes the same places, and sees and does the same things.

When he comes back, he says, "New York was not nice."

If truth is the issue, then one of you is lying. It has to be the case, because you're making opposite claims. So which one got it wrong: you, when you said it was "nice," or him, when he said it was "not nice"?

Or is it not a matter of truth, but merely of choice, of aesthetics?

The answer is obvious, isn't it? "True" is not the issue. Only "like vs. dislike" is being spoken about.

The opposite of "true" is "false", the opposite of "subjective" is "objective"? Aren't you conflating terms?

They're linked concepts.

How do you know when something is "true"? Answer that, if you would, and then I'll complete my point. I need to know what you think, first.

There are debatably different definitions of what it means to "know" something. What definition of "knowing" should I use?

[thomyum2]

Aesthetics is primarily subjective: anybody can disagree, with no problem. But one cannot disagree with reality and not pay a price for that...and often, a very significant one. Ontology is not "soft" or "forgiving" in the way aesthetics always is.

How did we get on the topic of category errors?

Simply by you making one.

When you ask whether NY is "nice place to visit," you're asking for an aesthetic judgement, not an objective one. So the issue of truthfulness does not enter the equation. There are no objective, truthful, or universal standards for "niceness." In fact, nobody knows for sure what you're asking. "Nice" is a highly maleable and subjective kind of assessment.

You can't ask whether or not it's "true" that NY is nice, because the answer would vary by whatever standards the listener chooses to apply. If I don't like NY, I'm not "wrong" or "untruthful" for doing so. You can ask for aesthetic agreement or disagreement. But the truth or falsity of the statement isn't even requestable. You're thinking in the wrong category.

I know I'm interjecting and maybe interrupting a good dialogue here but thought I'd offer an alternative way to think of this dichotomy. The 'categories' here really are what is publicly known (or knowable) and what is private. If we're making statements about things that are public (about the world that are there for everyone to see) those are objective statements. If we're making statements about private things that no one can see (what we are thinking or how feel about something) those are subjective. Whether a statement is true or not, or how or whether we can determine the truth of a statement, is an entirely different question from whether a statement is objective or subjective.

[Immanuel Can]

The opposite of "true" is "false", the opposite of "subjective" is "objective"? Aren't you conflating terms?

They're linked concepts.

How do you know when something is "true"? Answer that, if you would, and then I'll complete my point. I need to know what you think, first.

There are debatably different definitions of what it means to "know" something. What definition of "knowing" should I use?

Your own. Tell me how YOU go about the business of locating whatever it is YOU regard as "truth." Just that.

[Gary Childress]

They're linked concepts.

How do you know when something is "true"? Answer that, if you would, and then I'll complete my point. I need to know what you think, first.

There are debatably different definitions of what it means to "know" something. What definition of "knowing" should I use?

Your own. Tell me how YOU go about the business of locating whatever it is YOU regard as "truth." Just that.

Give me an example of something you think I know, and I'll try to tell you how I go about measuring its truth.

[Immanuel Can]

I know I'm interjecting and maybe interrupting a good dialogue here but thought I'd offer an alternative way to think of this dichotomy.

Please do. Welcome.

The 'categories' here really are what is publicly known (or knowable) and what is private. If we're making statements about things that are public (about the world that are there for everyone to see) those are objective statements. If we're making statements about private things that no one can see (what we are thinking or how feel about something) those are subjective.

Yes, that's a fair bit of truth, there. But it's even more: subjective is only a statment about my internal cognitions or impressions. Objective is about something that's outside of and beyond me, in the real world.

I was saying to Gary that it's like two people standing on a high tower. One is on LSD, and thinks he can fly. Subjectively, he can fly. His friend is not questioning his subjectivity, but the objective facts: if he does try to fly, will gravity kill him?

Whether a statement is true or not, or how or whether we can determine the truth of a statement, is an entirely different question from whether a statement is objective or subjective.

Consider that the two are inextricably linked.

To say something is "true," when speaking to somebody else, is to say they ought to believe it, because it conforms to the way things are in the real world. So truth can never be a merely subjective matter: if only some person or persons believe it, and the external world fails to conform to that belief, then that belief is simply not true...just as the LSD taker's subjective belief is not true.

Someone has sagely said, "Reality is the thing that pushes back against our subjective perceptions." That's not bad. It's pretty much also a definition of the truth.